On Friday 15 July 2005 12:55, Kristian Benoit wrote:
This patch provide a new feature (preconfig).
With this feature on, emerging an ebuild with an optional src_preconfig
function will unpack, preconfig, compile, ... on emerge. But with
preconfig off, it would do as usual and bypass the
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 20:13 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
By the way, you seemed to attach a unified diff between your modified
portage and an empty directory. Please don't do the same for busybox.
Sending a 1.4MB patch to a public mailing list is not very nice -
especially not in one go.
I'm
On Friday 15 July 2005 09:02 am, Kristian Benoit wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 20:13 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
By the way, you seemed to attach a unified diff between your modified
portage and an empty directory. Please don't do the same for busybox.
Sending a 1.4MB patch to a public
Hi,
I'm new to this list and I really don't know if this is the right
place to post this message. I already posted something about this on
the gentoo forums and I don't know too if the correct persons are
seeing that, so I decided to post here. Sorry for the double posting,
so I'll be straight on
On Friday 15 July 2005 05:59 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
In Slackware I had /etc/profile.d/ as a place to customize all my
shell environment, including aliases, prompt, etc, without touching
original Slackware's files.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4854
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
thanks! I did not look at bugs.gentoo.org because I did not thought
that things like this could be placed there, as I consider a
suggestion, not a bug.
On 7/15/05, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 15 July 2005 05:59 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
In Slackware I had /etc/profile.d/
On Friday 15 July 2005 06:36 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
thanks! I did not look at bugs.gentoo.org because I did not thought
that things like this could be placed there, as I consider a
suggestion, not a bug.
we use bugzilla for all bugs / enhancements pretty much
-mike
--
Thanks... I saw that bug and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
nothing was done. Did you know why?
On 7/15/05, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 15 July 2005 06:36 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
thanks! I did not look at bugs.gentoo.org because I did not thought
that things
On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
Thanks... I saw that bug and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
nothing was done. Did you know why?
hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never
posted to the bug
the only thing we really have against it
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 15:46 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Ok, now that devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel tree[1], I think it's
time to start to revisit some of the /dev naming rules that we currently
are living with[2].
To start with, the 061 version of udev offers a big memory savings if
you
can you control this ??
or... maybe could be a place most likely env.d that we could place
aliases, shell functions and customize prompt with a closed
objective approach
If I develop something safe there is some possibility to this being
put it on the main gentoo baselayout project ? If so, I'll
Hi,
Just another issue that it's easily handled anyway.
On Gentoo/FreeBSD and probably every other system using dev-util/libiconv
instead of the glibc-provided one creates the /usr/lib/charset.alias file.
Unfortunately this gets conflict over different packages.
The good way to handle this is
On Friday 15 July 2005 08:33 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Gentoo/FreeBSD and probably every other system using dev-util/libiconv
instead of the glibc-provided one creates the /usr/lib/charset.alias file.
Unfortunately this gets conflict over different packages.
i thought the
On Jul 15, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 July 2005 08:33 pm, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Gentoo/FreeBSD and probably every other system using dev-util/
libiconv
instead of the glibc-provided one creates the /usr/lib/
charset.alias file.
Unfortunately this
On Friday 15 July 2005 09:15 pm, Kito wrote:
On Jul 15, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
regardless, i think this should be done on a global scale rather than
per-package ... why not add some bashrc-foo to your profile ?
Globally would definitely be better IMO. But how would bash-fu
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
Thanks... I saw that bug and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
nothing was done. Did you know why?
hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before, but i guess we've never
posted to the bug
the only
On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 July 2005 06:56 pm, Herbert Fischer wrote:
Thanks... I saw that bug and saw that it is very old (from 2002) and
nothing was done. Did you know why?
hmm, us baselayout guys have discussed it before,
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My
vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the
oppertunity for users to shoot themselves in the foot would be good.
err i
On Friday 15 July 2005 09:56 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 15 July 2005 09:25 pm, Michael Marineau wrote:
Does the risk of abuse outweigh the potential usefulness that much? My
vote would be to do more of this sort of thing. Reducing the
oppertunity for users
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 18:56 -0700, Michael Marineau wrote:
I just ment that by providing profile.d (and similar things) would let
users customize
their profile without having to edit a gentoo installed file, making
upgrades a bit
easier. To prevent abuse perhaps portage could enforce a
Herbert Fischer wrote:
In Gentoo we need to hack files that sometimes are changed in some
emerge world updates, like /etc/profile, /etc/skel/.bashrc, and
that is a little mess to me, as when etc-update's list is too long I
place a -5 (auto update) and voilá... all my customizations are
gone.
21 matches
Mail list logo
